John Hart

The Town of Ajax brought an uncontested motion to adjourn a scheduled multi-day hearing before the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding various planning appeals for a proposed 660-unit residential development.

The Town's counsel requested the adjournment due to an upcoming medical procedure and a scheduling conflict with another hearing.

Finding the request reasonable and noting the lack of opposition from the other parties, the Tribunal granted the motion, abridged the time for service, vacated the April 2026 hearing dates, and scheduled a new five-day video hearing for June 2026.

The applicants appealed the Town of Orangeville's refusal of their applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a 12-unit residential development.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals and scheduled a five-day merit hearing to commence in April 2026.

The parties were directed to submit a final Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a two-storey place of worship.

Following a productive Tribunal-led mediation, the parties requested additional hearing dates to allow for continued mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day hearing, which may be converted to a settlement hearing if a resolution is reached, and directed the filing of a revised Procedural Order.

The City of Markham passed a by-law designating a property containing a one-storey brick dwelling as a heritage property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The property owner appealed the designation to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal evaluated the property against the prescribed criteria and found that while it met the criterion for design or physical value as a modest Ontario Cottage style tradesman's dwelling, it did not meet the criteria for historical or contextual value.

Because a property must meet a minimum of two criteria to be eligible for designation, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered the by-law repealed.

The City of Markham passed a by-law designating a 1890s farmhouse as a property of cultural heritage value under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The applicant appealed the designation, arguing that the property only met one of the required criteria.

The Tribunal found that while the property met the criterion for design value as a representative Gothic Revival farmhouse, it did not meet the criteria for historical or contextual value.

As a property must meet at least two criteria to be eligible for designation, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered the by-law repealed.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's Development Charges By-law 24-072.

At the first Case Management Conference, a third party requested party status, which the respondent opposed on the basis that the third party had not appealed within the statutory period.

Due to the absence of the third party's counsel and the respondent's counsel not being fully briefed on the objection, the Tribunal deferred the determination of party status to a second Case Management Conference and directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the Town of Ajax's failure to make decisions on three site plan applications for a proposed development.

At a case management conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal ordered that the site plan appeals be heard together with the scheduled appeals of the related Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications.

A further case management conference was scheduled to finalize the issues list and procedural order.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision, the Ontario Land Tribunal approved a draft Procedural Order on consent of the parties.

The Tribunal scheduled a nine-day video hearing for February 2025.

Additionally, the Toronto Region Conservation Authority was removed as a party on consent, as it had reached an agreement with the applicant on conditions of approval.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a proposed Official Plan Amendment, the parties advised the Tribunal that settlement discussions were ongoing and requested new hearing dates.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing for October 2024 and directed the parties to provide an updated Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant brought a motion for directions under the Planning Act after the Town of Ajax refused to accept its site plan applications.

The Town argued the applications were premature because the required pre-consultation meeting had not occurred and the related official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision were not yet in effect.

The Tribunal found that the Town's refusal was not authorized by the Planning Act, as the municipality cannot use a pre-consultation by-law to indefinitely delay or refuse an application, nor can it demand an approved OPA, ZBA, or DPS as a complete application requirement unless explicitly stated in the official plan.

The Tribunal deemed the applications complete as of June 30, 2023.

The applicant appealed the Town of Orangeville's refusal of consent, minor variance, and zoning by-law amendment applications intended to facilitate the creation of a new single-detached residential lot and two semi-detached units on a property containing a heritage dwelling.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and compliant with the criteria for consent under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, provisionally granted the consent, approved the zoning by-law amendment, and dismissed the minor variance application as redundant.

The applicant applied to have her 2020 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the applicant's financial evidence, which showed her monthly income exceeded her expenses and she held significant equity in her mortgage-free home.

The Board concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay the property taxes levied in 2020.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a student residence development.

The parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the proposed development, which includes 10 and 15-storey buildings with student residences and accessory commercial uses, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and local official plans, and represents good land use planning.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order regarding contamination associated with a former manufactured gas plant site.

The parties requested a further adjournment of the appeals to allow for continued discussions and the implementation of work plans.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it fair and reasonable as progress was being made and there was no immediate threat to human health or the environment.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation brought a motion to apply the doctrine of issue estoppel to outstanding assessment appeals for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years, based on a previous Board decision regarding the 2013 taxation year.

The previous decision found that the subject property did not qualify as farm lands used only for farm purposes and changed its classification to vacant land/commercial, increasing its assessment.

The Board applied the discretionary factors from Danyluk and found no material change in circumstances or compelling reasons to re-open the issues.

The motion was granted, issue estoppel was applied, and the previous findings on current value and classification were applied to the 2014, 2015, and 2016 appeals.

The applicant union requested reconsideration of a prior Tribunal decision, alleging a denial of natural justice because the original hearing panel failed to provide adequate notice that the parties' agreement on job classes was in jeopardy.

The respondent city opposed the request, arguing that the majority decision demonstrated proper notice was given.

Noting a disagreement between the majority and minority decisions regarding the notice provided, the Tribunal directed the parties to produce excerpts from the original hearing transcripts to assist in determining whether a breach of natural justice occurred.